Tory MP Justin Tomlinson was found to have passed a select committee draft report on payday lenders to a Wonga employee before it was published. His contact suggested alterations to the report, which Tomlinson ensured were made.

And think on this: Are you Mr Tomlinson's boss?

Video Loading

Video Unavailable

Click to playTap to play

The video will start in 8Cancel

Play now

Mr Tomlinson has leaked sensitive information to someone we'd rather he didn't, and his punishment is not going to the Palace of Westminster for two days.

I don't know about you but I can go whole YEARS without visiting a palace and barely notice the fact, so in terms of punishment this doesn't seem overly harsh.

Mr Tomlinson, the MP for Swindon North, didn't personally gain. The Wonga employee he was speaking to was a disenchanted employee, not someone doing the company's bidding.

Tomlinson has published some details of his wrongdoing on his personal website and made a grovelling apology to the Commons. But he has not, so far, apologised to us .

There are two reports into the matter available online to anyone who'd like to be appalled, and they state that in 2013 Mr Tomlinson was a member of the Public Accounts Committee whose job it is to scrutinise government expenditure.

But when the PAC drafted a 35-paragraph report into how to crack down on these lenders Mr Tomlinson sent the whole thing to an employee of Wonga.

That employee then sent back four paragraphs of suggested changes which Mr Tomlinson forwarded on to the committee's clerk, and which were eventually included almost word-for-word.

Mr Tomlinson, when this was all uncovered, said it was a mistake due to inexperience and that the Wonga employee was as keen as he on stricter controls.

His official response says: "I sought his view on whether the proposed regulations were technically possible and to do this I had shared the draft report to provide context. His response confirmed that the increased regulation that I supported could indeed work. This would have the effect of restricting the activities of the payday loan industry."

He told the privileges committee that investigated him: "All I was ever doing was helping to decimate its business model."

Perhaps this all seems reasonable to you. He made a mistake. He had acted in the public interest.

Except that's not quite all of it.

Justin Tomlinson apologises over Wonga row

This came to light only when lawyers at Wonga came across the emails and sent them to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner to investigate.

The investigation found it'd been a "substantial interference" and Mr Tomlinson had committed a contempt of Parliament. It recommended he suffer the "serious penalty" of a two day suspension.

That's despite the fact in 2008 the Privileges Committee said such leaks were "a reprehensible act", "damage trust" and should be punished with "appropriately severe sanctions".

But we're used to Parliament not holding itself to account. This is still a case of naivete, right?

Very careful naivete, if you ask me.

You see Mr Tomlinson sent that draft report to the Wonga employee using his personal Gmail account. And he sent the suggested alterations to the committee's clerk using his official email.

Which you might think showed a less-than-naive concern for digital fingerprints. If he mistakenly thought this was parliamentary business, why not use his parliamentary email?

Look ma, no hands (Image: Getty)

The ancient common law office of Misconduct in Public Office is the one used to prosecute elected officials who have been accused of breaching their duties, either wilfully or maliciously, without any reasonable excuse and in a way that damages public trust.

And as Mr Tomlinson himself said in 2014 after reporting fellow MP Sadiq Khan to police for driving while using a mobile phone: "Those who make the laws should certainly not be above them."

He is a public office holder. He has admitted breaching his duties to Parliament, to his electors, and to the office he holds. His actions have indisputably driven trust in politicians, admittedly not that high to start with, yet lower.

I doubt he had any malice, but if anyone were to consider what "wilful" misconduct is it might include switching between personal and official email accounts with the result that your boss doesn't know who you've been talking to.

And whether his excuses for that are reasonable or not might best be left to a jury to decide.

Does this smell right to you? (Image: Getty)

That's what would happen if Mr Tomlinson were a council-employed car park attendant leaking sensitive fines information to a journalist, a publicly-paid prison officer communicating with G4S, or a librarian discussing how to sway official book purchases.

There are plenty of people who wind up in court after making stupid mistakes. But an MP?

I rang the Metropolitan Police to ask if they'd comment on their procedures for investigating possible crimes by Members of Parliament. "Oh, we don't comment on that," they said.

Thanks, officer (Image: Getty Images)

Then I asked the House of Commons press office to explain the procedure for any MP accused of an offence.

"It was recommended that Mr Tomlinson make a personal statement to the House and be suspended from the services of the House for two sitting days. I hope this helps," I was told, unhelpfully.

The fact is Mr Tomlinson leaked information, admitted doing so, and if that's not a crime it looks a lot LIKE one.

I'm not a police officer or a prosecutor. I'm just a person with an opinion, and as able to read the legislation and ask questions as anyone else.

And if Mr Tomlinson was my MP I'd ask the police if he'd committed a crime, because while he might be naive, it might have been in the public interest and it might not have helped Wonga, not to investigate him risks destroying everything that makes a democracy.

The Houses of Parliament (Image: Getty)

It places one group of people above the law others are subject to. It says our laws are made by people who don't have to answer to them or to us.

It means that the people we send to Westminster to represent us can undermine the work of Parliament without so much as a backward glance.

It's four years until Mr Tomlinson's next personnel review. There are 79,488 voters in Swindon North who could undertake it for him, and I imagine most would expect their MP to go to Parliament and not destroy democracy while he's there.

Perhaps Mr Tomlinson could consider this a written warning - if you get caught and don't apologise to your boss, the court of public opinion can be a far harsher place than the Old Bailey.